Science vs. religion (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, March 01, 2009, 14:47 (5744 days ago) @ dhw


> Remember that science deals with likelihoods and probabilities and is constantly being revised. It is a method, not a set of facts.[/i]" Where do you get your authority ... or where does your scientist get his ... for making such a pronouncement about life on Earth? Of course scientists are perfectly entitled to express their opinions, but on the basis of the evidence presented thus far by our world, any scientist with the least respect for the objectivity of his profession would have to qualify "is likely" with "I think". ....... I think you take it only to mean the origin of life. I am sceptical as to whether science will ever be able to prove that life on Earth arose spontaneously (i.e. by accident), though I am not sceptical about the ability of science eventually to find the combinations that led to life. - Excellent observations. This post shows how scientific reasearch teams battle back and forth even to establish a fact of minimal importance, the age of life on Earth. What does it matter if it was 3.8 or 3.7 billion years ago? The real point is that it appeared so soon after events on early Earth calmed down enough to allow life to try to appear. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090216131450.htm